ILNews

Parents, child service provider group sue DCS over subsidies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


In a one-two punch, a pair of lawsuits filed a week apart in December hit the Indiana Department of Child Services square in the gut over how the agency planned to reduce payment rates for foster and adoptive parents and juvenile service providers.

The suits have been combined in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana into a single piece of litigation that raises questions about how these per diem subsidy changes are calculated and what impact they could have on the overall child welfare and juvenile justice system.

Led by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the Indiana Association of Residential Child Care Agencies (IARCCA), the cases both named as defendants the DCS and Director James Payne, a former juvenile judge in Marion County. The suits represent more than 100 agencies statewide and could potentially impact a class of foster and adoptive parents throughout Indiana.

But the case ties in with a broader picture that goes beyond the per diem payment rate changes that were set to go into effect in 2010 and those within Indiana's juvenile justice system say the DCS decisions could potentially have a detrimental effect on both the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. They claim the policies and decisions being made are jeopardizing effective treatment services and consequently tying judges' hands by reducing their options in doing what's best for children and families.

"This is very concerning because we must provide enough services so that we can, as judges, make reasonable efforts to reunite families and provide the services to children who need it," said Marion Superior Juvenile Judge Marilyn Moores, who pointed out she wasn't familiar with the two cases but has concerns after hearing about the issues. "Any disruption in the provider community is very concerning to judges because our concern is if there will be reasonable services available. If there's not, that jeopardizes what we do."

At issue in the now-combined lawsuits are DCS funds received and allocated under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, which says the state must make foster care maintenance payments for qualified children to cover food, shelter, clothing, daily supervision, personal incidentals, liability insurance, and reasonable travel to the child's home for visitation. Federal law requires that the rates be sufficient to cover those costs, and in exchange for that payment the state DCS receives federal matching funds to cover part of the costs for those services to children.

In setting rates during the past two years, the DCS has scaled down any increases and frozen the rates paid to service providers as budget woes worsened for Indiana. By October, the expected cut for service providers was at 10 percent but it changed by Nov. 30 to between 14 and 20 per- cent with a stern warning from DCS that any provider that didn't agree to the rates within two weeks would have children in their care transferred to other providers.

For foster and adoptive parents, DCS sent a letter in early December notifying them that their monthly payments would be reduced by 10 percent starting Jan. 1, no matter when the placement or adoption took place.

That set the stage for the litigation, and when that DCS-imposed deadline for rate agreements came, the lawsuits began.

Service providers sue


IARCCA, an association of about 110 child welfare agencies providing services to about 4,600 children statewide, filed the first suit in Marion Superior Court Dec. 14. The focus is on the rate cuts announced earlier that month by DCS for agencies providing foster care placements and intensive residential treatment for abused and neglected children. Within two weeks it was removed to federal court, and IARCCA continued its efforts to stop DCS from implementing payment cuts it describes as arbitrary and based solely on budget concerns.

Specifically, the suit cites examples of those cuts, including: Indiana Developmental Training Center in Lafayette and Indianapolis, which services up to 64 and 96 kids respectively and would have to cut even more than the 29 positions already eliminated in both locations; and the Christian Haven residential provider in Jasper County, which expects to eliminate 40 positions including therapists and employees who provide direct care to children.

The suit makes three claims against DCS: It violated Indiana Code 4-22 by not setting reimbursement rates according to promulgated rules; it violated Title IV-E by not offering any written criteria or methods about rate changes and adequacy of what's proposed; and the agency violated the Section 1983 provision of the U.S. Constitution by acting under color of state law in setting arbitrary rates and violating the federal rights of IARCCA and its member agencies.

DCS declined to comment for this story because of the pending litigation, though spokeswoman Ann Houseworth said the agency hopes for a quick resolution and looks forward to continued partnerships with all those committed to the welfare of Indiana's children. After the cuts were announced in early December, DCS Director Payne issued a news release.

"These are incredibly difficult deliberations and everyone involved recognizes the magnitude of the decisions made," he said. "Like other state agencies and business entities, we have spent countless hours trying to find ways to reduce expenses and be good stewards of tax dollars while providing safe, quality care for children... The rate reduction, while unfortunate, still keeps Indiana foster care rates higher than most states."

IARCCA hit the DCS with its first blow within two weeks of the announcement. A second blow came a week later.

Parents follow suit


On Dec. 22, the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed suit on behalf of two adoptive and foster families, with a combined total of nine children who are at the heart of the case. A motion for class certification has been filed, seeking to expand the case for any foster parents who are or will receive foster care maintenance from the DCS, and any current or future foster children for whom any payments are to be made through the DCS.

The lawsuit claims Payne and DCS failed to conduct individual assessments of families and the cost of providing for foster and adoptive children before deciding on the cuts, which will reduce adoption and foster care subsidies so much that parents won't be able to provide for the children's needs.

Both DCS cases have been consolidated, as they deal with similar issues and the same agency decision. A preliminary injunction motion filed Dec. 29 asks the court to stop the state from being able to initiate the reductions while the litigation is ongoing, and a hearing is scheduled for Jan. 20. A class certification request is also pending before the court.

Impact


While DCS litigation plays out in court, those in the juvenile justice and child welfare system are concerned the payment changes for foster and adoptive parents will cause more to turn away from these necessary roles, giving the courts and child welfare workers even fewer options for protecting children. Others see this as another piece in a larger puzzle of problems in the DCS in recent years as the DCS has gained more control of the juvenile justice system.

Judge Moores said she fully understands the financial pressures the state and DCS are under but that those monetary concerns can't be the underlying basis for these decisions.

"That was always the fear skeptics had about the DCS making the calls," she said, referring to controversy about the DCS having final say on out-of-state placements. "I fully understand the financial pressure the state is under, but if lower reimbursement rates drive providers out of business, there's a concern that there won't be appropriate services for families and kids.

"I don't know what the answer is," Judge Moores said, "but I certainly hope the best interests of children will remain the primary guiding force."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT